Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003-04 NHL transactions


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Speedy keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2003-04 NHL transactions
Fails WP:NOT, namely its policy against Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics and indiscriminate collection of information. Most of the transactions are non-notable and share no characteristics besides taking place during the same NHL season. Also violates WP:FUP with the inclusion of team logos for each player.
 * I am also nominating the following related pages, for the violation described above:

Madchester 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2005-06 NHL transactions
 * 2006-07 NHL transactions
 * Weak keep Frankly, I don't think this nomination has a good grounding in either section of the policy, since the loosely associated topics doesn't list similar examples and the indicsriminate collections of information lists seven things that consensus has established qualifies as such, and this is none of these. I'm not a sportsperson, so if arguments sway me, I may change my vote. Do people think this is useful information? I hear my friends commenting on player trades all the time...--Kchase T 02:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all. Factual, verifiable, and not indiscriminate as it pertains to important events during the course of each season. Logos can and should be edited out to satisfy FUP. (WP:HOCKEY caught most of the logo-ed up pages but there are still probably a few out there.) BoojiBoy 02:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is the trade of Tom Koivisto for future considerations notable? Important trades should be included in the respective NHL season articles instead.  The trades are factual and verifiable but they fail WP:NOT. --Madchester 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, as he is obviously notable enough to warrant an article. And the reason they're not in the season articles is for size constraints. BoojiBoy 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I personally disagree with the nom. This article does not fail WP:NOT in my opinion.  Also, notability is in the eye of the beholder -- despite what some may think.  DMighton 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The transactions are neither loosely associated nor indiscriminate.  There was a bit of discussion on WP:HOCKEY when these pages were created.  See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive3.  -- JamesTeterenko 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very useful information for fans of the game. As a long time veteran of message boards, you would be surprised how much the topic of "when was player x traded, and for whom?" comes up.  Articles like these can answer that question.  The list is verifiable, factually accurate and it serves a purpose. Resolute 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentThough I do agree with the argument of a violation of WP:FUP. However, the logos can very easily be removed. Resolute 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Don't bring up the messageboards bit per WP:NOT - not a discussion forum.  I'm on many sports forums at Fanhome, RFD, etc. and understand how trade rumours are always discussed, but the articles still fail WP:NOT for the reasons given.  The articles are no different than similarly deleted tennis articles recently.  (See Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass) Actually, I'm curiously to see the opinion of editors who are not affiliated with WikiProject Ice Hockey. --Madchester 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. As BoojiBoy stated, you are misreading what WP:NOT is.  I mentioned message boards to show that hockey fans find this information useful.  As it is, it does not appear to me that you have justified that these lists violate WP:NOT.  Given how broad your argument appears, I could use your logic to justify the deletion of every single list on Wikipedia.  This clearly is not a list of loosely based topics, nor is it indiscriminant information.  It is a list of one single topic:  Players that have moved from one team to another. Resolute 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You are completely misreading WP:NOT. It says that wikipedia is not a message board and it says that message boards are not relevant sources, but you can't use that to argue about the usefulness of an article, just because some people on a board find that article useful. I am sure that people on a Jessica Simpson message board find Jessica Simpson useful; that doesn't mean we should delete that article. BoojiBoy 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Along that line of logic, Roger Federer messageboard users will find his article useful; however, the list Roger Federer's winning streak on grass is not, since it contains a series of indiscrminate information; voted for deletion for that reason here Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass. A list of trades that took place during an NHL season is no more distinguishable than the 30+ victories on Federer's recent grass winning streak. --Madchester 18:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, it's much more akin to this. And as mentioned, the reason these deals aren't in the season articles is for size constraints. BoojiBoy 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable league, information is very useful and presented in a good way. Does not seem to fail WP:NOT--Coasttocoast 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Masterhatch 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hockey fans would find this useful and interesting.  Cdcon   20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The FUP violation is simple, albeit time-consuming, to fix, and it's no less notable a list of transactions as you'll find anywhere else on WP. Doogie2K (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Sports history has a rightful place here.  Additionally, per WP:LOGOS this does not seem to be a violation of fair use. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.